# call_function() and bf_FOO()

Richard Godard (rgodard@divsun.unige.ch)
Sun, 28 Apr 1996 06:39:15 PDT

- Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

    At 1:40  -0400 4/28/96, Kipp the Kidd wrote:
    >At 09:59 PM 4/27/96 PDT, slayer@kaiwan.com wrote:
    >>>So?   If this happens, it obviously means something was programmed
    >>>incorrectly and should raise an E_MAXREC.  What else could it do?
    >
    >I can't believe nobody here pointed this out...  From the changelog, IF THE
    >VERB CONTAINING THE BUILTIN IS NOT ON #0, then $bf_FOO is called...  Thus,
    >if it IS on #0, then $bf_FOO ISN'T called...  there's nothing recursive
    >about this.

    Heh, even better: the :bf_FOO verb can be defined on an ancestors of #0 :-)
    Of course you still have to call $bf_FOO(...) to get the desired effect.

    Note that this avoid to bloat #0 with zillion of wrappers (just define them
    on some $bf object and then chaprent #0 to $bf, et voila.)

    Just my $0.02

    Richard

    ---
    "640K ought to be enough for anybody."
        -- Bill Gates, 1981